Comparison between two premedication regimens of dexamethasone before a pemetrexed-based chemotherapy: A single-center experience study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pemetrexed, frequently used for the treatment of pulmonary adenocarcinoma, may cause cutaneous reactions that can be reduced with three oral doses of dexamethasone starting the day before treatment, and continuing after chemotherapy for a number of doses which varies according to the emetogenic potential of the protocol. Dexamethasone may induce side effects and no guideline suggests the conduct to favor when dexamethasone doses are omitted before treatment with pemetrexed. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of a simplified regimen of dexamethasone administered before a pemetrexed-based chemotherapy in preventing cutaneous toxicities. A prospective study was conducted with patients starting a pemetrexed-based treatment between February 2016 and August 2017 at the ambulatory oncology clinic of an academic hospital. Patients were divided into two groups, one receiving the usual oral premedication and the other receiving a 20-mg intravenous dose of dexamethasone prior to chemotherapy. Among the 70 patients included, 39 received the alternative regimen prior to a total of 114 chemotherapy cycles, while the other 31 patients received the usual premedication before a total of 154 cycles. The cutaneous toxicity incidence was of 10 events in the simplified treatment group compared to 9 events in the standard group ( p = 0.35). These events occurred in nine patients within the experimental group and five patients within the control group ( p = 0.56). A single intravenous dexamethasone regimen represents a valid alternative to the usual prophylaxis in preventing cutaneous reactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".